rhetorical analysis of winterson's art vs reality

It is clear from the very start that the movie, Food Inc. is a criticism and argument on

todays food processing industry, and evident that it is a negative one at that. The movie’s

objective is to uncover the curtain that is blinds all of the human race from the process by which

the food we eat is grown and slaughtered. While the final product is what we have been

accustomed to, the average person knows next to nothing when it comes to how the food was

made. Food Inc. goes into great detail using not only the farmers and various people, but more

more apparent the pathos used trough the vivid pictures and sounds of the slaughterhouses and

various animals who were treated more like a product than a living creature. With the simple fact

that food is a necessity to sustain life, clearly this movie applies to all humans, however, the

pictures and words that are used appear to be targeted towards a slightly more mature audience.

Furthermore, the movie includes all types of classes as well, interviewing a lower class family

paying very close attention to the cost of food products. In all this film as it attacks the food

industries, it opens people’s eyes to what is behind the scenes and clearly and makes people more

conscious about what they eat.

The film uses all three types of arguments; ethos, logos, and pathos, each adding a

significant part to the message that is being conveyed. First, we are introduced to the narrator

behind the film who is an investigative giving the sense of intelligence and trust in the things that

he says. And all throughout the documentary, various people and even a family was interviewed,

making the film applicable and easy to relate to for all people. Specifically, the farmers

interviewed, give the audience a first hand account of how the animals are kept, fed, and treated.

While some companies don’t even allow cameras inside of the farms,